Christine S. Lipsmeyer

The Eyes that Bind: Junior Ministers as Oversight Mechanisms in Coalition Governments

Research on multiparty governments has started to debate how coalition partners oversee each other’s policymaking. Due to the divergence of preferences among partners and the difficulty of sanctioning members of other parties, cabinet members attempt to monitor each other in policymaking activities through the use of junior ministers. By analyzing multiple countries’ governments across decades, this article contributes to the current debate about government oversight by defining the circumstances under which parties in coalition governments choose to use junior ministers to keep tabs on ministers from coalition partners. Specifically, we contend that their use depends on the power dynamics within a coalition, as well as the institutional structures in the broader political environment.1

Economic adversity and public mobilization in Russia

Abstract Since the beginning of post-communist transitions, the challenge for reformers has been how to mobilize winners and demobilize losers of economic transformation. Accounts of dual transitions suggested that it would be an uphill fight: economic crisis hit just when political liberalization offered the losers multiple opportunities to voice their discontent. But a reading of the comparative literature on participation implies the reverse—hardship would cut into individual resources and thus reduce, rather than encourage, political activism. In this paper, we assess the connection between economic hardship and participation in the Russian transition. We focus on two of the activities that should be closely tied to the expression of discontent, voting and protest. Using data from 1995, we argue that economics matters, but not quite in the way predicted by accounts of dual transitions or by the resource model. Neither objective economic dislocation nor dissatisfaction with economic conditions takes people out of politics. In fact, it is the relatively well-to-do who opt out.

The democratic experience in divided societies: The Baltic states in comparative perspective

Abstract The process of democratization in the Baltic states has been coloured by the question of the political integration of the formerly-dominant Russian-speaking communities. This paper compares the extent of ethnic differences in the experience of democracy in these three states with those in ten other East European societies in the mid-1990s. It examines how polarized ethnic groups are in terms of their satisfaction with the democratic process, representation and responsiveness and where the Baltic states stand in terms of the extent of such ethnic polarization compared with the range of situations found in former-communist Eastern Europe. The Baltic states are shown to be distinct from each other, with Estonia having the most polarized experience of democratic processes, and the findings generally undermine notions of Baltic exceptionalism with regard to democracy and ethnic relations. Finally, we consider the possible implications for membership in the European Union of the experience of unequal involvement in the democratic process in these societies.

Policy feedback and economic risk: the influence of privatization on social policy preferences

ABSTRACT Through policy feedback mechanisms, public policies can shape individuals’ preferences for those policies. While research has focused on the direct link between policies and preferences, how policies alter individuals’ preferences through indirect means remains less explored. Broadly, we argue that how micro-level factors influence policy preferences is contingent on the policy context, and specifically we contend that how economic risk influences preferences is contingent on the policy institutions that privatize social protection responsibilities. Using healthcare policy as the empirical context, we show that the level of privatization in national healthcare systems will colour how the risk of unemployment affects preferences for government healthcare.

The effects of immigration and integration on European budgetary trade-offs

ABSTRACT What affects government policy-making continues to be an important question for researchers interested in political competition and policy priorities. In this contribution, we bring together a theoretical framework that focuses on the influence of globalizing forces on government policy decisions with a methodological emphasis on explaining dynamic budgetary trade-offs. While comparative public policy and budgetary scholars typically have focused on entire budgets or amounts spent on specific policies, we look at the political priorities embedded in budgets by modeling the budget as a pie. Then, we theorize about how governments respond to external shocks by altering the allocations to the various policy areas. Using this approach, we find that governments of different ideological types react to external shocks by altering their different policy priorities.

‘Introduction: Political Budgeting from a Comparative Perspective’

ABSTRACT Research on budgeting has taken various theoretical and methodological approaches, and these differences have prevented scholars using these various approaches from discussing their common topic. In this collection, we have gathered a group of prominent scholars to explore the intermingling of budgets and politics from an assortment of theoretical and methodological perspectives. This culminated in a collection that highlights not only the breadth of current research but also the range of what remains underexplored.

Book Review: Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2008). Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

the way, such as differences in wording or timing across specific surveys. Duch and Stevenson artfully paint a clear picture of the forest and also illuminate some of the trees. Doing so, they systematize what are often considered idiosyncratic differences across countries. That voters hold the government responsible for the economy more in the United Kingdom than in Belgium, they show, is largely because of voters’ differential ability to learn about the incumbent competence due to particular aspects of the economic and political contexts in the two countries. As is often the case with excellent work, the book opens the door to many questions that this already comprehensive project does not address. Variation in the economic vote across individuals possessing varying resources for understanding the sources of macro-economic outcomes is one such avenue. Whether the economic vote, which the authors find to be of smaller magnitude in open economies compared to closed ones, will diminish over time is another. Overall, this standardsetting work defines the forefront of electoral research. It is a great resource for students of electoral and comparative politics alike.